A new age for radio and sound studies

Between the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth, the possibilities of three different types of wireless communication technology were made evident to the western world. Instead of uncritically presenting US-based accounts, this article delineates the relationship between radio technology and communication, moulded by the notion of modern science, which bears as a consequence the establishment of broadcasting as a mass phenomenon in western societies. The above-mentioned relationship is explained without downplaying at the same time the existence of relativism in particular social settings. Thus, the article is underpinned by the interplay among the cultural, economic and political factors that finally led to the development of radio broadcasting during the 'Roaring Twenties'.

Radio Critical Concepts in Media and Cultural Studies Vol Iii Vol 3 2008 Isbn 0415448646 Pag 61, 2008

This article makes an argument for connecting old and new technologies in our efforts to create a coherent field that we might call 'radio studies'. The lack of academic work to date on radio-the 'secondary medium' (Lewis, this issue)-has left us with a void in media and cultural studies. Radio's pervasive nature in everyday lives is less apparent in precisely those settings (the developed world in particular) where it has become a part of the everyday fabric of life. Currently there is a revival of interest in radio studies, which coincides (perhaps not accidentally) with the growth of new digital media technologies. The 'Radiocracy' conference at Cardiff demonstrated not only the resurgence of interest in academic studies of radio, but also the many and innovative ways in which radio is used (and sometimes abused) globally. In each location the medium is used differently, demonstrating not only that a global definition of the meanings and uses of 'radio' cannot be assigned, but also that new evolutions of 'radiogenic' technologies should not be dismissed as being different from 'radio' and therefore not a part of the remit of 'radio studies'. Many net.radio initiatives seek to circumvent governmental restrictions on analogue radio broadcasting by incorporating and developing new 'radiogenic' technologies. Examples are given to illustrate the arguments in this article; a small-scale net.radio operation in London is contrasted with a large commercial net.radio company located in the USA, and a development initiative in India is also considered. q K E Y W O R D S q digital age q innovation q net.radio q radiobility q radiocracy q radiogenic q radio studies q technology q theory q webcasting

Radio Journal:International Studies in Broadcast & Audio Media, 2018

Ten years ago It is ten years since this journal published 'Ten Years of Radio Studies: The Very Idea!', a reflection on a decade of work since the launch of the Radio Studies Network (Lacey, 2008). The Network had come together in 1998 when a group of radio scholars from around the UK responded to a plea, published in The Guardian by Peter Lewis a year earlier, for the academy to take radio seriously (Lewis, 2007). 1 Scholarship on radio had long been under-represented in the field of media and cultural studies in comparison to that on television, film and print, and increasingly, of course, the "new media". The essay acknowledged and celebrated the Network's spur to new research, new collaborations and new spaces for discussion and dissemination, including this journal and the biannual transnational conference. Ten years on, there was a new confidence in our collective endeavours, no need any longer to preface every contribution with an apologetic justification. But the phrase, 'the very idea!' was intended to indicate a certain ambivalence, if not quite incredulity, towards the conception (in both senses of that word), of radio as a separate field of study. To caricature the main thesis, I argued against the idea of 'radio studies' on the grounds that there is no such thing as radio, and that setting up a new intellectual enclave would in any case just continue to isolate, distort and marginalise our work pragmatically, intellectually and philosophically. This essay is a response to the editors' invitation-and challenge-to revisit that argument another ten years on. 2 No such thing as radio Of course, I was not seriously claiming that there is no such thing as radio. Rather, I was trying to draw attention to the fact that there is no singular thing called radio. Instead, this singular word, radio, is called upon to describe any number of different thingsmaterial, virtual, institutional, aesthetic, experiential. And, in turn, each of these meanings unfolds over time and in different contexts to reveal anything and everything, from a cat's whisker contraption of minerals and metal, rigged up by pioneering

Media Studies Journal, 1993

SK ABOUT "THE MEDIA" and people think first of television, then newspapers. Sometimes, though not always, they acknowledge the existence of radio. But it is not mmon for media critics to ignore radio altogether in their treatt of the larger modern media mix. Although the average erican owns multiple radios and lives with this most portable 'urn in every room in the house, in the office, the car and even in parks, mountain retreats and at the beach, radio is rarely the topic of public discussion, giving it the dubious identity of "the forgotten •wn." This, the oldest of the broadcast media and once the king electronic media, has moved farther and farther back in the media .ily photo. Occasionally there are references in the press to a radio. on sale, a new radio network or a controversy first ignited on radio, but such sightings of radio in the public discourse are cameo appearances, like those of a once-famous leading actor reduced to pia-on or character roles. Radio, however, is much more than a bit J yer or an aging "maiden aunt," as more than one author in this "'1'I'lIzi suggest. iQl A close look at radio demonstrates its vitality, its economic, politnica a.n d social importance, as well as its staying power in the commu-Co tlon ?eld. A flurry of articles last year about the Federal eire rn;unlcations Commission's concern over broadcasting for chiltil n emonstrated how far the radio star had fallen and how invisible ~"rnedium had become. In article after article, the term "broadcastmeant only television-not radio. Radio program listings, once a

The Radio Journal: International Studies in Broadcast and Audio Media, 2009

In the 10 years since the Radio Studies Network was founded, a substantial body of studies has been produced to address the neglect of radio as an area of study. Yet, this focus of attention runs the risk of distancing radio from other media rather than transforming it into a mainstream area of study. This article seeks to map a way for radio studies to more readily engage with debates outside the discipline. It suggests that researchers in the field should capitalise on the present ‘cultural turn’ to produce histories which anchor radio to everyday life and asks what ‘radio’ has come to mean, 10 years on.

Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television

National broadcasting cultures as dominant points of reference Besides other public intellectuals, no less a person than Bertolt Brecht was very enthusiastic about wireless broadcasting. In his 1932 speech 'Radio as an Apparatus of Communication', he considered the potentials of radio for democracy by discussing how the relatively new medium could overcome social and political boundaries if it establishes formats to communicate with listeners and point out sociopolitical deficits. 1 Among other demands, he calls for a critical public-service medium that controls those in power. Brecht's ideas have been instrumental in democratic societies where radio has become part of the fourth estate alongside print media and, some years later, television. Today, his thoughts are part of public-service agreements, broadcasting acts or editorial policies. Brecht's suggestions even have become a benchmark for the evaluation of national radio cultures: have they developed formats and modes that use the medium's ontological characteristics, has radio become a medium of communication with the population of a specific country or region, has it developed ways to control the national government? As these questions illustrate, the nation state has been the dominant reference point for radio, and with it radio scholarship, too. Radiolike broadcasting in generalhas been quintessentially shaped by specific regions or nation states. Most radio services and channels, in fact, not only explicitly refer to a geolocation through their names, but also their remit and target audience is more often than not linked to a particular country, a region or a city. Moreover, radio programmes and enterprises are subject to control and guidance by the responsible regulatory bodies, interest groups and media laws. It remains to be seen if such rootedness in specific geological or cultural locations will be overcome with new means of broadcast technology that relies on digital formats and the internet. Whereas